Re: [RFC] Basic Scalar Types
| From: | Bob Weinand | Date: | Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:46:19 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Basic Scalar Types | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-84595@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> Am 11.03.2015 um 23:23 schrieb Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>:
> On Mar 12, 2015 8:30 AM, "Bob Weinand" <bobwei9@hotmail.com
> <mailto:bobwei9@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > after all, some people are not happy with the current proposals about scalar types. So,
> > they both still possibly may fail.
> >
> > Thus, I'd like to come up with a fallback proposal in case both proposals fail:
> >
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/basic_scalar_types
> > <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/basic_scalar_types>
> >
> > It shouldn't prevent any future improvements and still give use all the advantages of
> > scalar types.
>
> Besides what I think of proposing yet another RFC, -1 because it is basically what the initial
> idea from the opponents of optional strict mode wanted before they go with the latest one. It also
> totally ignore what the Anthony's proposes.
>
Correct. It's just for the case where the other two fail.
We still can add strict mode in a later version if people need it.
All the RFC does is the most basic scalar type hinting you can build everything on. (for example
adding the declare(strict_types=1); would work without any BC break on top of it)
I see that it doesn't fit all the users, but there's still room for improvement in later
versions.
Bob